WI: Allied powers don't assist former Axis powers in rebuilding after WW2...

...and/or instead treat their countries as conquered territories?

I was thinking the other day about the whole Make America Great Again thing, and to most of the people in that movement, that era of "greatness" was the postwar economic boom. But in reality, part of the reason for said boom was because there wasn't really any economic competition from Europe and Japan because they were too busy picking up the pieces from the Second World War. Also, the thing that makes some people feel better about the US flexing its military muscles is that once our enemies surrender, we help them rebuild.

But, what if in the case of the former Axis powers, the US/UK decided not to be the better man? What if they decided the best way to keep the former Axis powers from rising again is to leave them to climb their way out of the holes they dug themselves into or keep them under the Allied thumb? No Marshall Plan, no restoration of sovereignty to Japan.

Would America still be "great"? Would the Cold War have been exacerbated by uprisings (people gotta be free) again the Allied occupation?
 
If we all just turned tail, Europe would be a lot more anti American than it is, and probably red.

yes we pumped a lot of time, money and surplus into Europe, but we also made money off it too. The entire of point of rebuilding west Germany was to have a bulwark against the east, plus to reintegrate them, to build a new Europe.

America was at the top of its game no matter what at that point. so that's not going change
 
The Marshall Plan stimulated the US economy as it allowed export markets for US products, especially as the US had limited competition at the time. The OP makes it out like it was some noble act, but it was in Washington's economic, political and strategic interests to pursue this.

In modern times China has a similar policy with it's "One Belt One Road" initiative, i.e. build infrastructure in under developed economies, stimulating growth and exports of Chinese products.
 
Allies would face long lasting violent resistance and rising of Communism. It wouldn't be worth of annexation. Much better is that they help people reconstruct their nations and adopt democracy. Oppression wouldn't be answer. It just would create new problems.
 
It probably falls to communism if the allies just bail.

Yep. Famine, unemployment, disease, etc etc etc, eat post WW2 mainland Europe alive if the US and Britain leave immediately. All of mainland Europe is a Soviet satellite by 1950 ITTL. Thus empowered, the USSR makes its play to conquer/puppet the rest of mainland Asia in the late 50s/early 60s. Mao probably gets a lead injection to the cranium and some more pro-Soviet CCP leader is installed.

Eventually, the isolationist sentiment in US/UK dies. So, by 2018 ITTL :

1)Either the USSR annexes or controls as puppet states the entirety of mainland Eurasia.

2)India is perhaps one of only 2 communist/socialist states to retain some degree of autonomy. Hindu resistance to pure aetheism is the source of this.

3)The other is Israel, which adopts a fully socialist economic system while permitting religious freedom for Judaism, and Judaism only. ( Not being anti-Semitic here, I just think this is what would happen in this environment)

3)Africa and the Pacific Ocean are the frontlines of the Cold War. Japan and Britain bristle with US troops/arms, as well as their own.

4) The US is ruthless, even damn near barbaric, in its methods of rooting out and preventing Soviet meddling in the Americas. Any Central/South American leader who leans even a little to the USSR's philosophy is assassinated by the CIA. Basically, a 21st century Monroe Doctrine on steroids.

5) Earth orbit and the Moon are heavily developed and militarized. Space tech advances far more swiftly, as it is seen as the future of Great Power competition, and is also a point of national pride. The US gets to Mars on a manned mission first (just barely) sometime in the 2010s.
 
This is important to understanding why the former Axis nations were rebuilt.

The Marshall Plan stimulated the US economy as it allowed export markets for US products, especially as the US had limited competition at the time. The OP makes it out like it was some noble act, but it was in Washington's economic, political and strategic interests to pursue this. ...

The US has always, from day one, been heavily dependent on exports. Some 60% of the US economy was connected to exports during most of the 20th century. The periods of protectionism and export reduction have not been kind to the US long term economy. In the case of the Marshall Plan the US banks had absorbed a fair size chunk of the worlds capitol. Capitol is worthless when sitting on a bank ledger. To continue existence it needs to be invested. Even without the massive infrastructure rebuild of th war years the US could not have kept up a healthy investment climate internally. Europe still had skilled labor, a well developed science base, and a fair amount of infrastructure still standing. It was a good target of US banks.

The OP aimed specifically at the former Axis nations. It is possible to neglect those, but other nations/regions would need to be the recipients of capitol & investment from US banks. Substituting investment in European Allies, bits of Africa, large parts of Latin America, ect.. for Germany, Italy, Japan...
 
This is important to understanding why the former Axis nations were rebuilt.



The US has always, from day one, been heavily dependent on exports. Some 60% of the US economy was connected to exports during most of the 20th century. The periods of protectionism and export reduction have not been kind to the US long term economy. In the case of the Marshall Plan the US banks had absorbed a fair size chunk of the worlds capitol. Capitol is worthless when sitting on a bank ledger. To continue existence it needs to be invested. Even without the massive infrastructure rebuild of th war years the US could not have kept up a healthy investment climate internally. Europe still had skilled labor, a well developed science base, and a fair amount of infrastructure still standing. It was a good target of US banks.

The OP aimed specifically at the former Axis nations. It is possible to neglect those, but other nations/regions would need to be the recipients of capitol & investment from US banks. Substituting investment in European Allies, bits of Africa, large parts of Latin America, ect.. for Germany, Italy, Japan...

Indeed. France in particular is probably going to be a huge benefitary of this policy, since in human capital terms it'd look the most attractive and secure/stable for investment (as well as being a strategic target of the US as the base for Capitalist influence on the continent). Assuming they also get their hands on German coal and steel production (and earlier, more French-dominated version of the E.C.a.S.C which would later likely develop into an E.E.C) as a concession from the Anglo-Americans, allowing France to retain dominance in mainland Europe and a more concrete Great Power status, and an ego-stoked De Gaulle is likely to remain aligned with them rather than trying to go their own way. With Italy and Western Germany left prostrate, you could even see a brain drain in France's direction, leading to an earlier/stronger post-war recovery and saving some of the need to import non-European guest workers.
 
... you could even see a brain drain in France's direction, leading to an earlier/stronger post-war recovery and saving some of the need to import non-European guest workers.

Scandinavia, Low countries, Iberia would also see German/Italian academics, skilled labor, and business acumen coming their way. This German/Italian diaspora would color European culture and politics for the remainder of the 20th Century. Something similar might occur with the Japanese. Stalin might welcome & encourage the skilled Japanese to immigrate to his new frontier.
 
The communism that looted their occupied territories?
Benign neglect is miles better than crushing occupation, which is what the Soviets did.

I mean if Germany was shattered and left without any aid or support after ww2 by the US, its either going to see another burst of desperate nationalism or the USSR is going to subvert things and take over, which is the reason the west wasn't prepared to let them drown.
 

Deleted member 1487

Scandinavia, Low countries, Iberia would also see German/Italian academics, skilled labor, and business acumen coming their way. This German/Italian diaspora would color European culture and politics for the remainder of the 20th Century. Something similar might occur with the Japanese. Stalin might welcome & encourage the skilled Japanese to immigrate to his new frontier.
I doubt half those countries would take German immigrants after WW2. Italy/Spain sure, probably South America as well. Scandinavia and the Low Countries or France? Doubtful.

But the Wirtschaftswunder was almost all done by German hands prior to the Marshall Plan being extended to them. Then the Germans, because they anticipated having to pay it back, hoarded it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder#Marshall_Plan

So while it would hurt not to get that aid money, it wouldn't have killed the recovery. What would have is continuing the repression of the German economy and not moderating the de-industrialization/reparations/loan repayment demands.
 
Scandinavia, Low countries, Iberia would also see German/Italian academics, skilled labor, and business acumen coming their way. This German/Italian diaspora would color European culture and politics for the remainder of the 20th Century. Something similar might occur with the Japanese. Stalin might welcome & encourage the skilled Japanese to immigrate to his new frontier.

Speaking of Spain and perhaps Portugal, I can see them easily gravitating into France's economic sphere, particularly since France is likely to act as a more forceful voice for retaining colonial Empires, or at least slowing down decolonization. Further integrating Europe into a self-reinforcing economic and political unit. I wonder how the Brits would react to this; do they pick between the US and Europe? Does American repression in Japan (Likely including a naval 'quarantine' to prevent makeshift rafts from making their way to Sakhalin) mean they lack the moral authority to condem police actions in Algeria and Indochina? Act as a broker between the two factions of "the West."?
 
I doubt half those countries would take German immigrants after WW2. Italy/Spain sure, probably South America as well. Scandinavia and the Low Countries or France? Doubtful.

...

Actually they did. After the mass repatriation of the 'Displaced Persons of the 1940s, a large scale migration in itself, a pattern similar to pre 1914 or the 1920s slowly started again. The main characteristic was the movement of workers from low employment regions to higher employment areas. In the early & mid 1950s there was a strong movement of labor from Italy north. Although the jobs were the dangerous & dirty work the preference was for skilled people who would be more productive even when down placed to a less skilled position. Italy was a source due to its poor economy. Germany was a receiver in this case since from the early 1950s labor was soaked up by the recovering industry. Labor departing Germany was mainly to the Americas during the 1950s, however managers, engineers, & other special skills did move to other European nations, mainly where connected to German business operations in other nations.

Deny Germany recovery investment & place no US military or NATO contracts there. Invest that capitol elsewhere in Europe & there is then a surplus of skill labor in Germany available to work where there are shortages.
 
... Does American repression in Japan (Likely including a naval 'quarantine' to prevent makeshift rafts from making their way to Sakhalin) ...

Why would they do that? Let the trouble makers go. Persons wanting to wander off into the Communist run nations of Europe were not much restricted by the US Army in the latter 1940s & fifties. In any case I've been to Hokkaido & I'm uncertain anyone would try to raft those frigid waters :O
 

Deleted member 1487

Labor departing Germany was mainly to the Americas during the 1950s, however managers, engineers, & other special skills did move to other European nations, mainly where connected to German business operations in other nations.

Deny Germany recovery investment & place no US military or NATO contracts there. Invest that capitol elsewhere in Europe & there is then a surplus of skill labor in Germany available to work where there are shortages.
Notice the caveats: in the 1950s, which was after the economic recovery and political rehabilitation of Germany, plus the start of the cold war, while in connection with German business interests; the US being the main receiver of outbound Germans was also not what I was talking about; if Germans are barred from the US ITTL, then they will find other places to go, like Latin America or Canada or perhaps even the UK if they allow it.
I cannot see why the US could not have military contracts there given the basing they'd have to do. Industrial military contracts like they did in the early 1950s during the Korean War would even be iffy as they did that out of necessity given that the US economy had demilitarized so heavily the US needed German industry to fill gaps that France and Britain could not even fulfill and there were political issues dealing with (Suez Crisis fallout). Of course without the German economy and it's trade function there would be major deficits in Britain and France. IOTL the major reason deindustrialization was even stopped and the Marshall Plan extended was the impact on the broader European economy, which could not function with Germany taken out of the mix. So you'd have to do something like permanently break up Germany and call the pieces something else or add them to other countries to have a plausible POD that doesn't involve total economic ruin of post-war Europe; if not there isn't going to be jobs for the Germans to get in the rest of Europe, because even with US investments there aren't functional trade patterns, just like after WW1, which is why the Brits and US got the French to lay off ToV economic demands.
 
It probably falls to communism if the allies just bail.

I find this exceedingly unlikely in most cases, in particular West Germany:

A secret group of Nazi German veterans who fought with the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS formed a 2,000-strong army to protect West Germany against the Soviets and hold back the Communists in case of civil war, according to intelligence documents.

The revelation surfaced by accident, when an historian discovered a 321-page file at the BND, the country's foreign intelligence service, while while working for an Independent Historical Commission hired by the BND to investigate its early history.

The army, formed initially of 2,000 Nazi officers in Stuttgart, was set up after Germany's defeat in 1945.

It was led by World War II colonel Albert Schnez and Otto Skorzeny, an SS official who was drafted as the field commander to carry out the rescue mission to release deposed Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini - then held by anti-fascists.

The group, which included businesspeople, sales representatives, a coal merchant, a criminal lawyer, an attorney, a technical instructor and even a mayor, collected spy information about left-wing politicians and eavesdropped on students accused of Communist leanings.

Former German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer only discovered the paramilitary group, which had no mandate from the German government and was therefore illegal under Allied forces' laws, in 1951.

The file even detailed the shadowy army's reaction in case of a war, claiming that it would include up to 40,000 fighters.

According to Schnez, the army was supported by Hans Speidel, who would become Nato's Supreme Commander of the Allied Army in Central Europe in 1957.
 
Would a Germany without the Marshall Plan really be that troubling to the SU? I was under the impression they wanted to keep Germany down and preferably portioned. With Germany as a buffer state like that, would there have been the same impetus to form NATO and the Warsaw Pact?
 
Top